Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b

Section 42-110b(a) can cover a fraudulent conveyance when the alleged conduct occurs within the defendants’ trade or commerce.

Gicc Capital v. Technology Finance Group, No. Cv 970159419 (Aug. 28, 1998) · filed 1785-07-05(a)

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants fraudulently conveyed the right to collect these leases to CRI. This is conduct within the trade of both TFG and CRI. The motion to strike the fourth count is denied because the plaintiff has set forth sufficient allegations to maintain a cause of action based on a CUTPA violation.

Section 42-110b(a) does not cover an isolated lawsuit brought outside the plaintiff’s trade or commerce.

Koehm v. Kuhn · filed 1987-11-04(a)

The law suit instituted by the plaintiff is a single isolated instance as distinguished from “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” A single instance or even isolated instances of unfair practices do not warrant actions under CUTPA.

Section 42-110b(a) applies only to parties engaged in advertising, selling, renting, leasing or distributing goods.

Burkert v. Petrol Plus of Naugatuck, Inc. · filed 1990-07-31(a)

The statute thus applies, by its terms, only to parties that have engaged in the advertising, selling, renting, leasing or distribution of goods.

Section 42-110b does not cover the housing authority’s eviction actions challenged here.

Gibbs v. Housing Authority of New Haven (In Re Gibbs) · filed 1981-03-05

The court concludes that the actions complained of are not within the intent or purpose of the cited statute and that Gibbs has shown no basis for recovery thereunder.

Section 42-110b(a) does not categorically exclude attorney conduct from its coverage, so suspected unfair or deceptive practices by attorneys may be investigated.

Heslin v. Connecticut Law Clinic of Trantolo & Trantolo · filed 1983-06-28(a)

For now, we need conclude only that CUTPA’s regulation of “the conduct of any trade or commerce” does not totally exclude all conduct of the profession of law. For the purpose of sustaining an investigatory demand, we conclude that CUTPA applies to the conduct of attorneys.

Section 42-110b(a) does not cover transactions for the purchase and sale of securities.

Russell v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. · filed 1986-06-10(a)

Consequently, in this case, taking our guidance from the FTC, we must construe CUTPA as not purporting to cover transactions for the purchase and sale of securities.

Section 42-110b(a) does not cover tortious conduct that occurs outside the context of trade competition or a trade practice.

Malone v. Johnson, No. 50 85 17 (Jan. 24, 1992) · filed 1992-01-24(a)

The Trial Referee properly concluded that the defendant's tortious conduct did not occur in the context of trade competition or a trade practice, and it therefore did not constitute a violation of General Statutes Section 42-110b (a).

Section 42-110b(a) requires the challenged conduct to occur in the defendant’s trade or commerce; a lessee’s incidental act of leasing property for its business does not qualify.

Arawana Mills Co. v. United Technologies Corp. · filed 1992-05-07(a)

Accordingly, plaintiff lessor has no claim under CUTPA against defendant lessee for defendant’s conduct in leasing the Property, because leasing property is not this defendant’s “trade or commerce” within the meaning of CUTPA.

Section 42-110b requires a CUTPA plaintiff to allege that the challenged acts occurred in trade or commerce; an employer’s handling of an employee’s workers’ compensation claim does not qualify.

Quimby v. Kimberly Clark Corp. · filed 1992-08-18

In order to allege a CUTPA violation properly, the plaintiff must allege, inter alia, that the acts complained of were performed in a “trade or business.”

Section 42-110b(a) does not cover a shareholder's claim arising from an internal corporate sale of stock to an insider below fair market value.

Gilman v. Gilman, No. 50 87 36 (Aug. 29, 1990) · filed 1990-08-29(a)

The claims that arise out of the present suit arise out of the sale of stock to the defendant. Based on the decision in Russell, as well as the decision of courts in other jurisdictions as cited herein, this Court concludes that the intra-corporate actions that form the basis of the plaintiffs' complaint under CUTPA does not state a cause of action. Accordingly, the motion to strike the second count of the complaint is granted.

A violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct alone does not give rise to a CUTPA claim against an attorney, even by a client.

Noble v. Marshall · filed 1990-09-11(a)

The rules that have been adopted by the judges of the Superior Court have the force of law; Mozzochi v. Beck, supra, 501 n. 7; but they were not intended to create a private cause of action under CUTPA.

Section 42-110b(a) does not provide a right of action against an individual homeowner for a one-time home sale outside the course of a trade, profession or business.

Skinner v. Till, No. 514857 (Apr. 16, 1991) · filed 1991-04-16(a)

This Court holds that when the legislature enacted section 42-110b (a), it intended to provide a right of action against only those persons acting in the course of a trade, profession or business, and did not intend to provide a right of action against individual homeowners not so engaged.

Section 42-110b(a) does not cover claims based on an employment relationship or the purchase or sale of securities.

Klachkin v. Cti Electronics Corp., No. Cv 92 0296097 (Jan. 5, 1993) · filed 1993-01-05(a)

Therefore, any claims for violations of CUTPA based upon either the employment relationship or the purchase or sale of securities are legally insufficient.

Section 42-110b(a) does not cover injuries arising from a customer's status as a business invitee when the injuries are unrelated to the seller's trade or commerce.

Robertson v. Stop Shop Supermarket Co., No. 67151 (Jul. 28, 1993) · filed 1993-07-28(a)

Therefore, the plaintiff's alleged injury does not arise out of a "trade" or "commerce" conducted by the defendants and as a result General Statutes Sec. 42-100b (a) does not apply.

Section 42-110b(a) does not cover a dispute between law partners over a withdrawing partner’s capital account because the dispute does not involve trade or commerce.

Moran, Shuster, Carignan & Knierim v. August · filed 1994-05-02(a)

This litigation is no more than a dispute between the defendant and his former partners as to the value of his capital account and the defendant’s interest in the law firm upon his withdrawal. It is not a dispute between parties that were in any kind of consumer relationship with each other. The complaint does not involve trade or commerce for the purposes of CUTPA.

Section 42-110b(a) does not cover disputes over obligations among participants in a joint venture because they are outside trade or commerce.

St. Raphael Healthcare v. Temple Med. Hotel Mgmt., No. 341662 (May 19, 1994) · filed 1994-05-19(a)

Conduct of participants in a joint venture which give rise to claims, controversies and disputes among the participants in this joint venture do not constitute methods of competition or acts or practices in the conduct of a trade or commerce within the meaning of § 42-110b (a).

Section 42-110b(a) does not make a commercial lessor liable for alleged unfair construction practices that occurred outside its trade or business.

Tucci v. Days Inn, Inc., No. Cv90 027 17 70 S (Jun. 21, 1994) · filed 1994-06-21(a)

By its terms, CUTPA prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices "in the conduct of any trade or commerce." General Statutes § 42-110b (a). ... The alleged use of defective materials and unqualified labor did not occur in the context of the movants' trade or business. Also, the plaintiffs have not claimed that their injuries resulted from the movants' trade or business.

Section 42-110b(a) does not cover a bank’s failure to disclose a security interest to a noncustomer when the alleged conduct is unrelated to the bank’s trade or commerce.

Shoreline Bank Tr. v. Ferguson McGuire, No. Cv94 0357031 (Jul. 28, 1994) · filed 1994-07-28(a)

The bank in the case before the court is not alleged to have been engaged in a transaction with the defendant nor is the bank alleged to have been providing information concerning encumbrances as a service. The allegations of the counterclaim do not relate the event complained of to the bank's "trade" or "commerce" as defined in § 42-110a (4). The wording of General Statutes §§ 42-110a (4) and 110b(a) and the interpretations of Burkert and Quimby lead this court to conclude that the counterclaim does not state a cause of action under CUTPA.

Section 42-110b(a) does not support a claim when the challenged practice is incidental to the defendant’s true trade or business.

Brandewiede v. Emery Worldwide · filed 1994-10-12(a)

There is no viable claim under CUTPA when the practice complained of is incidental to the true trade or business conducted.

A claimant under § 42-110b must have some consumer relationship with the defendant, though traditional contractual privity is unnecessary.

Zeller v. Consolini, No. 060356 (Nov. 18, 1993) · filed 1993-11-18

Moreover, Although privity, in the traditional contractual sense of an exchange of consideration between the parties, may no longer be essential for standing under CUTPA, a claimant under CUTPA must posses at least some type of consumer relationship with the party who allegedly caused harm to him or her. ... In the case at bar, the plaintiffs' have not alleged a consumer relationship between the plaintiffs' and the defendants. The plaintiffs' merely allege that the defendants petitioned the local commissions and courts for relief against the plaintiffs' proposed developments. Therefore, the defendants motion to strike the second and fourth counts of the plaintiffs' fifth amended complaint is granted.

Section 42-110b does not cover an isolated private sale of real estate by someone who is not in the business of selling real estate.

Jakab v. Sewell, No. Cv94 04 60 54s (Jun. 13, 1994) · filed 1994-06-13

An isolated private sale of real estate by one not in the business of doing so is, in the opinion of the court, not encompassed within the "trade or commerce" language of General Statutes § 42-110b .

Section 42-110b(a) applies to attorneys, and allegations of unfair or deceptive conduct in representing a client can support a CUTPA claim.

Gustafson v. Young, No. 105199 (Jul. 11, 1994) · filed 1994-07-11(a)

As CUTPA applies to attorneys, the plaintiff's cause of action falls within CUTPA's intended scope. It is evident that the facts alleged in the third count of the complaint are sufficient to support a CUTPA claim.

An attorney's continued acceptance of funds despite knowing neither the attorney nor the client has a right to them can state a claim under § 42-110b.

1800 Investors v. Elstein, No. Cv93 0133178 (Jul. 21, 1994) · filed 1994-07-21

Insofar as plaintiff alleges that defendants knew that neither they nor their client had a right to the funds collected but nevertheless continued to accept the funds, plaintiff alleges conduct which may have offended public policy, been unfair or unscrupulous, and caused plaintiff injury. In viewing the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, as is required on a motion to strike, a legally sufficient cause of action under CUTPA has been stated. Accordingly, the motion to strike count five is denied.

Repeated misrepresentations and nondisclosures by an attorney about a client's claim can support a CUTPA claim if the alleged facts satisfy the unfairness criteria.

Williams v. Gersten, No. Cv 940464312s (Jan. 24, 1995) · filed 1995-01-24(a)

In the present case, while the failure to timely file the Notice of Claim on behalf of the plaintiff may be a negligent act, the plaintiff has also alleged that the defendants repeatedly told the plaintiff they had in fact filed all necessary paperwork, that they never did inform plaintiff that his claim was late, and that they did not advise him of his rights after the bankruptcy judgment was entered and he did not receive his payment. If the ultimate trier of fact finds the plaintiff's allegations to be true, it is reasonable that such facts constitute violations of each of the three prongs of the "Cigarette rule". Therefore, the defendants' motion to strike count two is denied.

Section 42-110b(a) does not apply to acts of a municipality.

Lazaros v. City of West Haven · filed 1994-08-24(a)

CUTPA, however, is inapplicable to the acts of a municipality.

Section 42-110b(a) requires courts to consider the defendant’s activities when deciding whether conduct falls within trade or commerce; an employer-employee relationship alone does not resolve that question.

Larsen Chelsey Realty Co. v. Larsen · filed 1995-04-04(a)

Second, the trial court failed to consider Larsen’s activities, rather than his relationship to the plaintiff, as a basis for a CUTPA violation.

Section 42-110b requires a CUTPA claim to allege that the challenged acts occurred in the defendant's trade or business.

Kohl v. Murphy, No. Cv 93-0352626 (Jun. 8, 1995) · filed 1995-06-08

Counts three and seven do not allege that the defendants committed the alleged acts in the conduct of a trade or business; therefore these counts should be stricken.

Section 42-110b does not cover waste disposal that is merely incidental to a defendant's primary trade or commerce.

Barnes v. General Electric Co., No. Cv 93 052 93 54 (Jul. 25, 1995) · filed 1995-07-25

The court finds that the plaintiffs' allegations of the defendants' disposal of hazardous and toxic waste chemicals at OSL are merely incidental to the primary trade or commerce of the defendants. Therefore, a CUTPA claim based on such alleged conduct is not viable against the defendants.

Section 42-110b(a) does not cover waste oil disposal that is merely incidental to a real estate developer's primary trade.

Abely Waste Oil v. Ravenswood Dev., No. Cv95 036 94 87s (Sep. 15, 1995) · filed 1995-09-15(a)

However, this court will adopt the court's reasoning in Barnes v. General Electric Co., and hold that the disposal of waste oil by the defendant is "merely incidental to the primary trade of the defendant."

A claim under § 42-110b(a) must allege that the challenged conduct occurred in trade or commerce.

Kashetta v. Robertucci, No. 32 05 64 (Oct. 26, 1995) · filed 1995-10-26(a)

Count five of Kashetta's complaint is devoid of any allegations that Kashetta was involved in "any trade or commerce" in selling the house. Therefore, count five is legally insufficient.

Section 42-110b covers providing emergency ambulance services as trade or commerce.

Campion Ambulance v. Medstar, Inc., No. 111175 (Nov. 8, 1995) · filed 1995-11-08

The court holds that the motion for summary judgment should be denied as to the first count. The plaintiff has sufficiently alleged and made a showing of a CUTPA claim against the defendants. The conduct involved in the complaint involves the defendants Gentile and Medstar, concerning an application to provide emergency medical services in the Waterbury area. Providing emergency ambulance service is a trade or commerce under CUTPA.

Section 42-110b(a) requires the defendant’s challenged conduct to occur in trade or commerce; merely purchasing goods and services does not suffice.

R R Pool Patio v. Marron, No. Cv95 0146022 S (Dec. 21, 1995) · filed 1995-12-21(a)

The plaintiff has not alleged that the defendant was engaged in any trade or commerce, but rather that the defendant purchased goods and services from the plaintiff.

Section 42-110b(a) can cover an attorney's unfair or deceptive conduct in providing estate planning services.

Morelli v. Kablik, No. Cv93 05292205 (Mar. 1, 1995) · filed 1995-03-01(a)

Accordingly, defendant is in the business of rendering legal services and therefore is engaged in a trade. ... Here, plaintiff alleges that the defendant held himself out to have the requisite expertise to implement an estate tax savings plan; however, the plan provided did not achieve the intended result. Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded facts which support a cause of action under CUTPA.

Section 42-110b(a) does not cover a corporate ownership and employment dispute when the complaint alleges no trade or commerce or consumer injury.

Chila v. Chila, No. Cv94 0140570 S (Apr. 3, 1995) · filed 1995-04-03(a)

There are no allegations that the dispute involves any trade or commerce, or that the plaintiff has suffered a consumer injury. Accordingly, the defendants' motion to strike count four of the plaintiff's revised complaint is granted.

Section 42-110b does not cover a condominium association’s attempt to collect common charges under these circumstances because the association is not engaged in trade or commerce.

West Farms Condominium Assn. v. Satell, No. Cv930523203 (May 10, 1995) · filed 1995-05-10

The court is in agreement with all of the above decisions and holds that this plaintiff was not engaged in a trade or commerce — at least under these circumstances — in attempting to collect the defendants' common charge.

Section 42-110b(a) does not cover conduct arising solely from an employer-employee relationship because it is outside CUTPA trade or commerce.

Apicelli v. Arrow Paper Supply Company, Inc., No. 105975 (May 26, 1995) · filed 1995-05-26(a)

General Statutes § 42-110b (a) provides: No person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive trade or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. ... Secondly, the allegations in count two which is incorporated in count three arise solely out of the employer-employee relationship and therefore do not come within the purview of CUTPA.

Section 42-110b prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce.

Bieluch v. Dobensky, No. Cv94 0138893 S (Jul. 17, 1996) · filed 1996-07-17

CUTPA provides, "[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." General Statutes § 42-110b ; Trade or commerce is defined as the "advertising, the sale or rent or lease, the offering for sale or rent or lease, or the distribution of any services and any property, tangible or intangible, real, personal or mixed, and any other article, commodity, or thing of value in this state." General Statutes § ... 42-110a (4). The complaint does not allege the distribution of any services. The complaint states that the defendant testified at the trial, and that she claimed to be an expert. The complaint does not allege that the testimony was in the course of any trade or commerce, however, and accordingly the third count is stricken.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce.

Bernbach v. Timex Corp. · filed 1996-09-30(a)

CUTPA prohibits “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Conn. Gen.Stat. § 42-110b(a). ... The storage and disposal of hazardous substances that are generated incident to manufacturing activities cannot give rise to CUTPA liability.

Section 42-110b prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in the conduct of trade or commerce, so shareholder relationships within a corporation fall outside its scope.

Cassidento v. Mathis, No. Cv.-94-0537124 (Jan. 24, 1996) · filed 1996-01-24(a)

The relationship, obligations, duties and conduct among shareholders in a corporation do not come within the definition of trade or commerce under CUTPA.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce.

Kalwat v. Arnow, No. Cv93 0132773 (Feb. 5, 1996) · filed 1996-02-05(a)

"General Statutes § 42-110b (a) provides: `No person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.'" ... The first issue is whether CUTPA can apply to dentists and their providing of dental services to a patient. ... There is no reason to conclude that the practice of dentistry is any less "entrepreneurial" then the practice of law. ... Thus, both the first count and the CUTPA count are premised on negligence and the CUTPA count does not set forth a separate, cognizable cause of action. Accordingly, the defendant's motion for summary judgment as to count two is granted.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce.

Uniroyal Chemical Co. v. Drexel Chemical Co. · filed 1996-06-28(a)

Here we only hold that Uniroyal’s allegations in connection with a pesticide registration in the U.K. are sufficient to state a claim under CUTPA.

Section 42-110b prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce.

Watt v. Ford Consumer Finance Co., No. Cv95 32 35 72 S (Jul. 31, 1996) · filed 1996-07-31(b)

CUTPA prohibits any person from engaging "in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." General Statutes § 42-110b (b). ... The court finds that the allegations in the fourth count of the revised complaint arise from the employer-employee relationship and even if that is not so, the court finds that the fourth count of the revised complaint does not touch upon trade or commerce. The fourth count is therefore stricken.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair competition and deceptive or unfair practices in the conduct of trade or commerce.

St. John v. Riedel, No. Cv96 0152078 S (Nov. 5, 1996) · filed 1996-11-05(a)

The sixth count alleges a breach of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, General Statutes § 42-110b et seq. Section 42-110b (a) provides, "[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." The plaintiffs have not alleged that the injuries occurred in the conduct of trade or commerce, and accordingly the motion to strike count six should be granted.

Section 42-110b prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in the conduct of trade or commerce.

Isola v. MacKenzie, No. Cv92-0307875 (May 30, 1997) · filed 1997-05-30

General Statutes § 42-110b provides that "[N]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." "In order to allege a CUTPA violation properly, the plaintiff must allege, inter alia, that the acts complained of were performed in a trade or business." Pergament v. Green, 32 Conn. App. 644 , 655 , 630 A.2d 615 (1993). Here, the defendants have neither alleged nor proven that the plaintiff was acting in the course of a trade or business. It is clear that the plaintiff engaged in deceptive acts or ... practices but it was not in the conduct of his own business of repairing auto transmissions. The basis for the parties' relationship was the purchase of shares of stock in Lee Myles. The plaintiff was not engaged in the trade of purchasing and selling shares of stock. He did not make any misrepresentations as to the financial condition of Lee Myles. Therefore, the plaintiff did not violate CUTPA.

Section 42-110b prohibits unfair trade practices in real estate transactions.

Levesque Builders, Inc. v. Hoerle, No. Cv94 541793 (Oct. 9, 1996) · filed 1996-10-09

Under count 4, the court finds that plaintiff has violated section 42-110b et seq. by encroaching on the property subject to the first contract, by referring to a nonexistent map in the second contract, by proceeding to subdivide the property when he knew he had contracted to sell it to the plaintiff, and by placing a mortgage on the property Accordingly, judgment may enter for plaintiff in the amount of $151,000, plus an attorneys fee of $2,500 for violation of CUTPA), for a total of $153,500, plus costs.

Section 42-110b prohibits unfair trade practices.

Vloski v. American Protective Services, No. Cv93 0353966s (Nov. 14, 1996) · filed 1996-11-14

In paragraph 8 of the third count, the plaintiff asserts the following: "8. The defendant has adopted a method and business practice of installing alarm systems in a negligent and deficient manner and such actions constitute unfair trade practices within the meaning of the Connecticut General Statutes § 42-110b ." ... This certainly would seem to satisfy the first prong of the so-called cigarette rule. ... Therefore, although it is true that in a negligence claim the first prong of the cigarette rule alone is insufficient to support a CUTPA violation, A-G Foods Inc. V. Pepperidge Farms Inc., 216 Conn. 200 , 216-217 (1990), a more than a simple negligence claim is made here. ... The motion for summary judgment is denied.

Section 42-110b prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce.

Reichert v. Cardow, No. Cv 940360368 (Dec. 5, 1996) · filed 1996-12-05

In order to establish a CUTPA claim, a party must prove that the act or practice complained of constituted an unfair or deceptive act or practice in the conduct of any trade or commerce. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b . ... Rather, this court finds that the plaintiff's collection practice of knowingly making false statements in an attempt to secure payment for documents it had not in fact given to the defendant constituted unscrupulous and oppressive conduct in the conduct of the plaintiff's business that is an unfair trade practice actionable pursuant to CUTPA.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in trade or commerce and permits a CUTPA claim when the alleged conduct satisfies the cigarette rule.

Joseph v. Hannan Agency, Inc., No. 32 33 10 (Jan. 9, 1997) · filed 1997-01-09(a)

Our Unfair Trade and Practice Act, General Statutes § 42-110b (a) provides: "No person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. ... The plaintiffs have pleaded sufficient facts in their complaint to satisfy the first prong of the cigarette rule. ... The plaintiffs have pleaded sufficient facts in their complaint to satisfy the second prong of the cigarette rule. ... The plaintiffs have also satisfied the third prong of the cigarette rule by alleging substantial injury to consumers. ... The court denies the defendants' motion to strike the CUTPA counts of the complaint. The facts alleged in the plaintiffs' complaint are sufficient to withstand such a motion.

Section 42-110b allows a CUTPA claim based on conduct that violates a statute and may constitute an unfair trade practice.

McCarthy v. Jensen's, Inc., No. 535951 (Mar. 12, 1997) · filed 1997-03-12(a)

Accordingly, under the Conaway doctrine, the conduct alleged by the plaintiff, if proven, could constitute an unfair trade practice in violation of General Statutes § 42-110b .

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce.

Woodbridge Care v. Englebrecht Griffin, No. Cv 970396811 (Mar. 27, 1997) · filed 1997-03-27(a)

The Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act provides at Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b (a) that "[n]o person shall engage in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." ... This court does not find that it is an unfair trade practice for an architect who has not contracted to work exclusively on one client's project in an area to accept other work, especially when the architect is willing to withdraw after completing the plaintiff's design and plans in order to allay the plaintiff's fears.

Section 42-110b prohibits unfair competition and deceptive or unfair business practices, including practices meeting one or more cigarette rule criteria.

Wilkinson v. Rose-Wein, No. Cv 96 0072403 (May 13, 1997) · filed 1997-05-13

The Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110b , provides that "no person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or business." ... It is well settled that in determining whether a practice violates CUTPA [the Supreme Court has] adopted the criteria set out in the `cigarette rule' by the federal trade commission for determining when a practice is unfair: (1) whether the practice, without necessarily having been previously considered unlawful, offends public policy as it has been established by statutes, the common law, or otherwise whether, in other words, it is within at least the penumbra of some common-law, statutory, or other established concept of unfairness; (2) whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; (3) whether it causes substantial injury to consumers (or competitors or other businessmen). All three criteria do not need to be satisfied to support a finding of unfairness. A practice may be unfair because of the extent to which it meets one of the criteria or because to a lesser extent it meets all three.

Section 42-110b(a) requires conduct in trade or commerce and a consumer, competitor, or business relationship for a CUTPA claim.

Devalle v. Goggins, No. 0128043 (Oct. 11, 1996) · filed 1996-10-11(a)

CUTPA provides that "[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." ... In failing to allege any consumer, competitor, or business relationship with the defendants, the plaintiff has failed to allege a legally sufficient claim under CUTPA. ... Accordingly, the defendants' motion to strike counts nineteen and twenty is granted.

Section 42-110b(a) covers unfair competition and deceptive practices occurring in trade or commerce.

Howd v. Lilliendahl, No. Cv 9400539255 (Dec. 10, 1996) · filed 1996-12-10(a)

The sale did not occur in the course of the employer's trade or business, as he was not engaged in the business of buying and selling law practices. Hence, in the Court's view, that sale did not fall within the scope of the statute, which is limited, by its terms, to "unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." General Statutes § 42-110b (a).

Section 42-110b does not cover an isolated private real estate sale when the sellers are not in the business of buying or selling real estate.

Nathan v. Marcinkeviciene, No. Cv 96 0560919 (Mar. 7, 1997) · filed 1997-03-07

Therefore, because the plaintiff in the case at bar did not allege that the defendants were in the business of buying or selling real estate, the action complained of does not fall within the meaning of "trade or commerce." Accordingly, count two of the plaintiff's complaint does not properly allege a CUTPA violation and, therefore, the court grants the defendant's motion to strike count two of the plaintiff's complaint.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in trade or commerce and excludes professional negligence and malpractice from its coverage.

Haynes v. Yale-New Haven Hospital · filed 1997-08-26(a)

We conclude that professional negligence — that is, malpractice — does not fall under CUTPA.

Section 42-110b(a) does not cover conduct merely incidental to a defendant’s primary trade or commerce.

Cornerstone Realty, Inc. v. Dresser Rand Co. · filed 1998-01-05(a)

This court agrees with the principle that a CUTPA violation may not arise out of conduct that is merely incidental to the performance of one’s trade or commerce.

Section 42-110b requires the challenged conduct to occur in trade or commerce.

Whtr Real Estate Limited v. Dinardo, No. Fbt Cv 96-0338017 S (Feb. 3, 1998) · filed 1998-02-03(a)

In regard to the Fourth Count of me complaint alleging a violation of CUTPA, the plaintiff has not shown or alleged that the defendants are engaged in the conduct of any trade or commerce necessary for the application of CUTPA.

Section 42-110b does not treat a developer’s management of a condominium association as trade or commerce.

Rafalowski v. Old County Road, Inc. · filed 1998-07-21

Of specific relevance to this appeal, however, are the court’s conclusions, in favor of the defendant, that management of the association did not constitute trade or commerce within the meaning of CUTPA and that neither the association bylaws nor the laws of this state prohibited the defendant from establishing different assessments for finished and unfinished units. ... The central issues of the applicability of CUTPA, the amount and payment of assessments by the defendant, and the propriety of injunctive relief were resolved properly in the trial court’s thoughtful and comprehensive memorandum of decision. ... Because that memorandum of decision fully addresses the arguments raised in the present appeal, we adopt it as a proper statement of the facts and the applicable law on those issues.

Section 42-110b(a) covers alleged deceptive practices in a proposed sale of a business, allowing a CUTPA claim based on those allegations to proceed.

Niese v. Barlette, No. Cv970575213 S (Aug. 3, 1998) · filed 1998-08-03(a)

The present case is factually similar to Kim v. Magnotta, 49 Conn. App. 203 (1998), a recent case decided by our Appellate Court. ... In addition, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld CUTPA claims alleging deceptive practices in a variety of business transactions. Fink v. Golenbock, supra, 238 Conn. 215 ; Larsen Chelsey Realty Co. v. Larsen, 232 Conn. 480 , 496 , 656 A.2d 1009 (1995). Accordingly, the defendants' motion to strike count seven of the amended complaint is denied.

A letter sent to collect a debt is not trade or commerce under § 42-110b(a) when the defendant alleges no purchase of goods or services from the sender.

National Loan Investors v. Reale, No. Cv 98-0577024 (Dec. 3, 1998) · filed 1998-12-03(a)

In fact, comparing the allegations contained in the first count of the counterclaim to the definition of ascertainable loss as set forth in Hinchliffe reveals that the type of conduct alleged — the sending of a letter in attempt to collect on a debt — is far removed from the type of consumer injury that CUTPA was designed to remedy. The defendant is not alleging that he purchased goods or services from the plaintiff. Examining the definition of "trade or commerce" as set out in the statute itself further confirms this notion. The alleged conduct simply is not "trade or commerce" as defined.

Section 42-110b(a) does not cover purely intracorporate conflicts, but can cover conduct outside an employment relationship aimed at diverting one corporation’s business and clientele to another.

Ostrowski v. Avery · filed 1997-12-09(a)

Although purely intracorporate conflicts do not constitute CUTPA violations, actions outside the scope of the employment relationship designed “to usurp the business and clientele of one corporation in favor of another ... fit squarely within the provenance of CUTPA.” Fink v. Golenbock, 238 Conn. 183, 212, 680 A.2d 1243 (1996).

Section 42-110b does not cover a one time sale of a private residence by sellers who are not engaged in the real estate trade.

Pfeffer v. Fontana, No. Cv97 034 08 72 (Dec. 30, 1997) · filed 1997-12-30

Therefore the court concludes that a one time sale of a private residence by the defendants, who are not engaged in the real estate trade, is not covered by CUTPA.

Section 42-110b(a) can cover a tenant’s personal injury claim when a landlord’s failure to make a repair required by habitability law implicates the business of renting property.

Simms v. Candela · filed 1998-03-04(a)

The violation complained of here is the absence of a gutter in an apartment house resulting in a dangerous condition. While this may indeed be an act of negligence (and a violation of the Landlord and Tenant Act to boot), it also implicates the enterpreneurial aspect of the landlord’s business. Renting an apartment building without adequate gutters may be financially advantageous to the landlord and increase his margin of profit. Conforming to the requirements of the Landlord and Tenant Act costs money. Public policy nevertheless requires landlords to expend such money. When they do not, CUTPA is properly invoked.

Section 42-110b does not cover an intra-organizational dispute that does not involve trade or commerce.

Sector Management v. Taurus Adv. Group, No. Cv96 0154033 S (Apr. 15, 1998) · filed 1998-04-15

This is due to the statutorily required allegation under CUTPA that the dispute arise from "trade or commerce." Id. The present case clearly involves an intra-organizational dispute in the same spirit as the above listed types of cases. The underlying dispute, as alleged in count four, does not implicate "trade or commerce." The defendants' CUTPA cause of action, therefore, is legally insufficient.

Section 42-110b(a) covers corporate officers’ breach of fiduciary duty, interference with corporate business expectancies, and use of corporate funds for personal benefit.

Giordano v. Bittner, No. Cv 057 75 52 (Jul. 2, 1998) · filed 1998-07-02(a)

In the present case, viewing the allegations in the complaint most favorably to the plaintiff, it is evident that the conduct of the defendants, which included breaching their fiduciary duty, interfering with the business expectancies of C M Warehouse, Inc. and using the corporation's funds for their personal benefit, falls within the purview of CUTPA.

A CUTPA claim against a health care provider must involve an entrepreneurial or business aspect of its services; allegations about medical care alone do not suffice.

Doe v. Veterans Memorial Medical Center, No. Cv 97 0571265 S (Jul. 6, 1998) · filed 1998-07-06

The plaintiffs have not alleged any facts concerning the CT Page 8395 entrepreneurial or business aspects of the defendants' provisions of medical services. Therefore, they have not stated a cause of action under CUTPA and this count, as well as the related claims for relief for punitive damages and attorneys fees are ordered stricken.

Section 42-110b covers claims arising from the commercial or entrepreneurial aspects of accounting, but not claims based on accounting malpractice.

The Advest Group, Inc. v. Andersen, No. Cv 97 0571417 (Jul. 28, 1998) · filed 1998-07-28(a)

Based on the foregoing, the same limited exemption from CUTPA that applies to the practices of law and medicine should apply to the practice of accounting that is, only claims arising out of the commercial or entrepreneurial aspects of accounting should fall under CUTPA.

Section 42-110b covers the entrepreneurial aspects of legal practice, but professional malpractice falls outside CUTPA.

Beverly Hills Concepts, Inc. v. Schatz & Schatz, Ribicoff & Kotkin · filed 1998-09-15(a)

Accordingly, as in the health care context, “we conclude that professional negligence— that is, malpractice — does not fall under CUTPA.” Id.

Section 42-110b(a) can reach conduct involving out-of-state franchisees when the alleged trade or commerce is intimately associated with Connecticut.

Diesel Inj. Serv. v. Jacobs Vehicle Eq., No. Cv-98-0582400-S (Dec. 4, 1998) · filed 1998-12-04(a)

CUTPA declares that "[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." General Statutes § 42-110b (a). ... It is logical to infer that where non-Connecticut franchisees have an agreement to distribute products created and manufactured by a company with its principal place of business in Connecticut, the defendant's conduct is tied to trade or commerce intimately associated with Connecticut.

Section 42-110b(a) can cover an employee's anticompetitive conduct outside the scope of employment.

Intelisearch Inc. v. Milo, No. Cv98 0163353 S (Dec. 4, 1998) · filed 1998-12-04(a)

Thus, here the CUTPA claim is not based on the employer-employee relationship between the plaintiff and Milo, but rather on Milo's anticompetitive activities that are outside the scope of his employment.

Section 42-110b(a) requires a plaintiff to allege that the challenged acts occurred in the conduct of trade or commerce.

Yuille v. Bridgeport Hospital, No. Cv98 035 89 02 (May 11, 1999) · filed 1999-05-11(a)

These allegations are insufficient to state a cause of action under CUTPA because the plaintiff has failed to allege that the defendant's acts occurred "in the conduct of any trade or CT Page 6605 commerce."

Section 42-110b(a) requires a CUTPA complaint to allege facts showing the defendant acted in trade or commerce; an alleged consumer, competitor, or business relationship must be pleaded with particularity.

Countryside Condominium v. Stanavage, No. Cv 97 540601 (May 13, 1999) · filed 1999-05-13(a)

In failing to specifically allege any consumer, competitor, or business relationship with Stanavage herself, Countryside has failed to allege a legally sufficient claim under CUTPA.

Section 42-110b requires the challenged conduct to occur in trade or commerce; owning land and intending a commercial use do not, by themselves, satisfy that requirement.

Strobel v. Stiglin, No. Cv-97-0073819s (May 18, 1999) · filed 1999-05-18(a)

"CUTPA provides that no person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." ... Although Taylor owns land adjacent to Strobel, and Taylor may have manifested an intent to use the land for a commercial purpose, Taylor is not advertising, offering for sale, or distributing any real or personal property. Strobel has not sufficiently alleged that Taylor is engaged in trade or commerce. Taylor's motion to strike the fifth count is granted.

A garage’s sale of stored automobiles to recover storage charges is trade or commerce under § 42-110b(a).

Bank of New Haven v. Karas Motors, Inc., No. 414574 (Jul. 28, 1999) · filed 1999-07-28(a)

The sale of automobiles, pursuant to General Statutes § 14-150 (g), is simply a remedy provided for the recovery of charges incurred by storing the automobiles. In short, it is sufficiently related to the business of a garage to be a "trade or commerce," within the meaning of CUTPA.

Section 42-110b(a) requires a CUTPA claim to allege conduct in the defendant's trade or commerce; merely receiving debt restructuring services outside its business did not suffice.

Advest, Inc. v. Carvel Corporation, No. Cv 98-0585401s (Sep. 21, 1999) · filed 1999-09-21(a)

Advest has failed to allege that Carvel is in the debt restructuring business, or that Carvel's actions in accepting Advest's services constituted "trade or commerce" on the part of Carvel, within the meaning of CUTPA.

Section 42-110b(a) does not cover claims arising solely from an employer-employee relationship because that relationship is not trade or commerce under CUTPA.

Ranciato v. Nolan, No. Cv 97-0401729 (Sep. 23, 1999) · filed 1999-09-23(a)

CUTPA is inapplicable to a claim that involves an employer-employee relationship; such claim does not rise to the level of trade or commerce cognizable under CUTPA.

Section 42-110b covers the commercial aspects of law practice, but not malpractice or misrepresentations arising from an attorney’s representation of a client.

King v. Cummings Lockwood, No. Cv95 0144937 S (Dec. 8, 1998) · filed 1998-12-08

The plaintiff's CUTPA count incorporates the legal malpractice count of his complaint and adds only an allegation that the defendant violated CUTPA. The plaintiff has not demonstrated that his case concerns the commercial aspects of law. The misrepresentations the plaintiff alleges arise within the context of the attorney/client relationship between the plaintiff and defendant and do not involve commercial aspects such as attorney billing or advertising. Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment Is granted as a matter of law.

Section 42-110b permits a CUTPA claim against an attorney to survive a motion to strike when the complaint alleges billing practices involving the entrepreneurial or commercial aspects of law practice.

Farino v. Chiarelli, No. Cv-98-0262708 (Mar. 16, 1999) · filed 1999-03-16

Farino has alleged entrepreneurial and/or commercial aspects of the practice of law by stating that Chiarelli never provided a receipt or an accounting of sums received during the representation. These allegations are not necessarily related to Chiarelli's competence or strategy. Because I cannot on the pleadings determine that no facts have been stated on which relief can be granted, Chiarelli's motion to strike the fourth count is denied.

Section 42-110b does not prohibit hiring a competitor's employees by itself, absent wrongdoing by the person doing the hiring.

Webster v. Kofkoff Egg Farm, No. 548187 (May 4, 1999) · filed 1999-05-04

However, hiring the employees of a business competitor is not in itself a CUTPA violation absent allegations of wrongdoing on the part of the individual doing the hiring.

An accounting malpractice claim under § 42-110b(a) must allege misconduct involving the commercial or entrepreneurial aspects of accounting.

Nacca v. Simione, No. Cv 96-0387221 (May 28, 1999) · filed 1999-05-28(a)

Because Advest and Haynes apply to the present CUTPA claim, Nacca must allege some violation of the commercial or entrepreneurial aspects of the defendants' accounting profession to survive the defendants' motion to strike.

Section 42-110b can apply when a lawyer charges a client an excessive fee and deceives the client about its reasonableness.

Rohan v. Rosenblatt, No. Cv93-0116887s (Aug. 13, 1999) · filed 1999-08-13(a)

It is well established that CUTPA applies to the business or "entrepreneurial" practices of lawyers toward clients or prospective clients. ... The facts in this case satisfy all three components of the cigarette rule. Rosenblatt's actions in charging an unreasonable fee and deceiving Rohan as to its unreasonableness offend public policy as set forth in the common law regarding the attorney-client relationship. ... The plaintiff has established the defendant's violation of CUTPA.

Section 42-110b(a) presumptively covers home inspection services.

Robinson v. Parillo, No. 403691 (Oct. 22, 1999) · filed 1999-10-22(a)

Because the defendant did not render medical or legal services to the plaintiffs, its services are presumptively within CUTPA's reach. The defendant's motion to strike count fourteen is denied.

Section 42-110b does not cover an individual's one-time sale of a home when the seller is not in the business of selling real estate.

Walker v. Barrett, No. Cv99 0169673 (Nov. 8, 1999) · filed 1999-11-08

This court aligns itself with those Superior Court decisions which have held that a single act will not constitute a CUTPA violation if the actor is an individual not engaged in a trade or business, such as situations involving the one time sale or rental of a house by an individual not engaged in the business of selling or renting houses.

Section 42-110b(a) does not cover an employee’s simple breach of an employment agreement, but a competitor’s alleged inducement of that breach and resulting economic injury can support a claim.

Computer Horizons Corp. v. Factorum, No. Cv-98-0584758-S (Nov. 19, 1999) · filed 1999-11-19(a)

The alleged wrong committed by Olechna against CRC amounts to nothing more than a breach of an employment agreement established between an employer and an employee, and therefore does not establish a cause of action under CUTPA. ... Based on the allegations included in the complaint, CRC has provided legally sufficient facts to support a claim under CUTPA. As such, relief can be granted under CUTPA for this claim and the motion to strike count seven is denied.

Section 42-110b(a) permits a claim against attorneys for billing tied to alleged intentional misrepresentations made to conceal their malpractice, although merely billing for corrective services does not violate the section.

Kegeles v. Bergman, Horowitz Reynolds, P.C., No. 391439 (Nov. 24, 1999) · filed 1999-11-24(a)

But an attorney is not forbidden from presenting the client with a bill for services and his doing so does not trigger a CUTPA violation. ... In addition, the plaintiffs have stated a violation of CUTPA based on an entrepreneurial aspect of the practice of law, billing, insofar as they allege that this billing was done to remedy the malpractice as opposed to alleging that the billing constitutes malpractice.

Section 42-110b(a) requires a CUTPA claim to allege that the challenged unfair or deceptive conduct occurred in trade or commerce.

Barbagallo v. Rob's Automotive, No. Cv99-0494861s (Dec. 3, 1999) · filed 1999-12-03(a)

Particularly, the plaintiffs fail to allege that the defendants committed unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the course of a "trade or commerce" as required to state a cause of action under General Statutes § 42-110b (a) and as defined by General Statutes § 42-110a (4).

A CUTPA complaint must allege that the challenged acts were performed in a trade or business.

Suffield Devel. Assoc. v. Natl. Loan Inv., No. Cv 99 0590031s (Feb. 8, 2000) · filed 2000-02-08

In the present case, Suffield's complaint is devoid of any allegation that the acts complained of were performed in a "trade or business."

Section 42-110b(a) requires a CUTPA complaint to allege that the challenged acts occurred in the conduct of trade or commerce.

Dasilva v. Federal Mortgage of Connecticut, No. Cv 99 0173586 (May 8, 2000) · filed 2000-05-08(a)

These allegations are insufficient to state a cause of action under CUTPA because the plaintiff has failed to allege that the defendants' acts occurred "in the conduct of any trade or commerce." General Statutes § 42-110b (a).

Section 42-110b(a) requires a CUTPA complaint to allege facts showing that the challenged acts occurred in trade or commerce; a bare assertion is insufficient.

Suffield v. Nat'l Loan, No. Cv 99 0590031-S (Jul. 20, 2000) · filed 2000-07-20(a)

The court finds that Suffield's amended complaint does not contain any allegation that the defendants advertised, sold, leased or distributed any services to Suffield; ... and thus, the amended complaint is devoid of any allegation that the acts complained of were performed in a "trade or business" as defined by § 42-110a (4). Accordingly, the court grants NLI's motion to strike count four.

Section 42-110b(a) treats taking and using a competitor's trade secret documents for competitive advantage as an unfair practice and unfair competition.

Dunsmore Associates v. D'alessio, No. 409906 (Jan. 6, 2000) · filed 2000-01-06(a)

The defendant's taking of the plaintiff's documents, containing its trade secrets, without permission, and using them in his business for competitive advantage satisfies the first two criteria. In addition to being an unfair practice, it constitutes unfair competition.

Section 42-110b(a) can cover false or misleading accounting representations connected to the sale of a business interest when they implicate the commercial aspect of accounting services.

Facchini v. Miller, No. Cv 99-0587686s (Jan. 31, 2000) · filed 2000-01-31(a)

Although there is a divergence of opinion among the various decisions in the Superior Court, this court concludes that these allegations if construed most favorably for the plaintiff, are sufficient to implicate the commercial or entrepreneural aspect of the practice of accounting by the defendants, particularly where the sale of a business interest is involved and fall within the statutory definition in General Statutes § 42-110b (a) of "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce."

Residential lease transactions can fall within § 42-110b, but a finding that the lease is valid and enforceable can defeat a tenant's unfair trade practices claim.

MacCiaroli v. Giannantoni, No. Cv18 6775 (Feb. 7, 2000) · filed 2000-02-07

Though the transactions that are the subject of the present case fall within the scope of CUTPA, the findings in favor of the plaintiff as to the validity and enforceability of the lease are dispositive of the defendants' CUTPA claim.

Section 42-110b covers the entrepreneurial or commercial conduct of health care providers, but does not cover conduct concerning a patient's medical treatment.

Scherer v. Waterbury, No. Cv 97 0137073 (Feb. 22, 2000) · filed 2000-02-22

The actions complained of concern the treatment of the plaintiff while at the hospital, not entrepreneurial or commercial functions of Waterbury Hospital. While considering the facts alleged in the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the court determines that the defendants' motion to strike the second count should be granted as the plaintiff has not stated a claim that is legally sufficient to state a cause of action under CUTPA.

A doctor's attempt to collect fees above an insurer's “reasonable and customary” amount does not, by itself, establish an unfair trade practice under § 42-110b(a).

Ranieri v. Dilustro, No. Cv 99-0427050s (Feb. 28, 2000) · filed 2000-02-28(a)

In order to recover damages in the present action, pursuant to General Statutes § 42-110g , the defendant must first establish that he has been subjected to an unfair or deceptive trade practice, pursuant to General Statutes § 42-110b , as that statute is interpreted by the common law cigarette rule. ... The defendant has failed to show that the plaintiffs actions, as set forth above, are in violation of any prong of the "cigarette rule". The defendant has therefore failed to establish that the plaintiffs actions constituted a violation of CUTPA.

A CUTPA claim against a health care provider must allege facts implicating the business or entrepreneurial aspects of its services; allegations concerning medical competence alone are insufficient.

Sherwood v. Danbury Hospital · filed 2000-02-29(a)

The plaintiff has made no specific factual allegations to support her claim that the entrepreneurial or commercial aspects of the defendant’s business were implicated by its alleged decision to use untested blood when tested blood was available.

Section 42-110b requires a claim against a health care provider to allege facts showing that the provider’s entrepreneurial or business conduct was implicated.

Johnson v. Skowron, No. Cv98 035 47 80 S (Jul. 28, 2000) · filed 2000-07-28

Here the plaintiff's allegations in count two are insufficient to implicate the entrepreneurial or business aspect of the defendant's profession. The plaintiff's allegations do not set forth with sufficient particularity how or in what way those aspects are implicated by the defendant's sale of the Chinese pills to the plaintiff for treatment.

Section 42-110b(a) does not prohibit a clearing broker from refusing to clear trades that would violate securities laws.

Couldock & Bohan, Inc. v. Société Generale Securities Corp. · filed 2000-03-29(a)

No reasonable juror could find that Defendant’s refusal to continue clearing Plaintiffs trades in violation of the securities laws offended public policy, was unfair, immoral, unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous, or caused injury to consumers.

Section 42-110b(a) requires a CUTPA plaintiff to allege a commercial relationship with the defendant, such as a consumer or competitor relationship.

Nolfi v. Melson, No. Cv 99 036 08 76 S (Jun. 12, 2000) · filed 2000-06-12(a)

Applied here, the plaintiffs do not state sufficient allegations of any commercial nexus in relation to the defendants so as to have standing to assert a CUTPA claim. ... Thus, the plaintiffs do not allege a sufficient CUTPA claim upon which relief can be granted and therefore, the defendants' motion to strike count four of the plaintiffs' amended complaint is granted.

Section 42-110b(a) does not support an unfair trade practices claim without a sufficient consumer, competitor, or business relationship between the parties.

Putnam v. County Environmental, No. Cv 98 0166445 S (Jul. 21, 2000) · filed 2000-07-21(a)

The relationship alleged by the plaintiff does not constitute a consumer, competitor or business relationship within the meaning of CUTPA. Accordingly, counts thirty-six, thirty-seven, forty and forty-one of the plaintiff's revised complaint are stricken.

A landlord’s alleged violation of the duty to keep common areas clean and safe, coupled with claimed injury, can state a CUTPA claim; mere negligence alone cannot.

Suto v. Deerfield Realty Co., No. Cv99 068553 (Jun. 27, 2000) · filed 2000-06-27(a)

Mere negligence without more does not violate the act. ... A violation of a regulatory statute satisfies the first and second criteria of the "cigarette rule." ... The plaintiff also pleads that she suffered economic losses, and serious physical injuries, in order to meet the third criteria or prong of the "cigarette rule." ... The Court finds that the pleadings set forth by the plaintiff are sufficient to state a cause of action under CUTPA.

A CUTPA claim based on a patent co-inventor's commercial use of the patent fails without an allegation that the use is illegal.

Heath v. Micropatent, No. Cv 97 401481 (Aug. 10, 2000) · filed 2000-08-10

The present complaint does not cure this defect — nor can it. The present CUTPA count only adds allegations as to how the defendants converted the plaintiffs' ownership interest in the patent. See paragraph 25. What is lacking is a claim that Micropatent's commercial exploitation of the patent is illegal.

Section 42-110b(a) covers unfair practices in a business context even when incidental to the defendant’s primary business, and permits claims based on aiding, abetting, or conspiring in another’s unfair practice.

Feen v. Benefit Plan Administrators, Inc., No. 406726 (Aug. 30, 2000) · filed 2000-08-30(a)

In conclusion, the court holds that a CUTPA claim may be brought against a person for violations that occur in a "business context," regardless of whether those violations relate to the primary activity of the person's business or an activity which is incidental to the primary activity of the business. The court also holds that a CUTPA claim may be based upon allegations of aiding and abetting as well as conspiring and colluding, and that the ninth count of the plaintiff's complaint sufficiently alleges each of these bases.

Section 42-110b requires the challenged conduct to occur in trade or commerce; an employment relationship does not qualify.

Muniz v. Kravis · filed 2000-09-05

To state a claim under CUTPA, the plaintiff must allege that the actions of the defendant were performed in the conduct of “trade or commerce.”

Section 42-110b does not cover acts committed in the conduct of academic research and publication.

Johnson v. Schmitz · filed 2000-09-29

To resolve the present action, this Court need not decide to what extent an educational institution’s activities may fall within the scope of CUTPA because it concludes that actions taken in the conduct of academic research and publication are not within the intendment of the statute.

Section 42-110b(a) requires the alleged unfair or deceptive conduct to occur in the defendant’s primary trade or business, rather than in activity incidental to it.

Ny-Conn Corp. v. Southbury Diagnostic, No. Cv99-0158613 (Oct. 24, 2000) · filed 2000-10-24(a)

Because the plaintiff has failed to allege facts necessary to meet CUTPA's requirement that the defendant's acts or omissions occur within the context of the "trade or commerce" in which the defendant is primarily engaged, and not merely incidental thereto, it has not asserted a CUTPA violation. CUTPA provides: "No person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." General Statutes § 42-110b (a).

Section 42-110b(a) requires a claimant to allege that the challenged acts occurred in the defendant's trade or business.

Freshnex v. Mount Vernon Strategies, No. Cv-00-0437778s (Jan. 19, 2001) · filed 2001-01-19(a)

A plaintiff must allege that the acts complained of were performed in a trade or business. Quimby v. Kimberly Clark Corp ., supra, 28 Conn. App. 669 . The third count of the counterclaim lacks this essential allegation.

Section 42-110b(a) does not cover an isolated sale of real estate by someone who is not in the business of selling real estate.

Altern v. Land-Tech Consultants, No. Cv 98 0146742 (Jan. 23, 2001) · filed 2001-01-23(a)

In order to allege a CUTPA violation properly, the plaintiff must allege, inter alia, that the acts complained of were performed in a trade or business. ... The court finds that the sale of Lot 2 was an isolated sale of real estate by a person not engaged in the business of selling real estate. Accordingly, Pearlman's motion for summary judgment should be and is hereby granted as to the seventh count of the complaint.

Loading chemicals onto a carrier's trailers falls within a manufacturer's trade or commerce when the manufacturer undertakes that work as part of distributing its products.

Marten Trans. v. MacDermid, No. Cv00 0160172 (Mar. 26, 2001) · filed 2001-03-26(a)

The court finds that the loading of the defendant's chemicals onto the plaintiff's trailers was not incidental to the conduct of the defendant's primary trade or business.

Section 42-110b(a) covers unfair or deceptive acts in a business context even when the activity is incidental to the defendant's primary business.

Feen v. Benefit Plan Administrators, Inc., No. 406726 (Sep. 7, 2000) · filed 2000-09-07(a)

In keeping with the broad remedial nature of CUTPA and the direction of CT Page 10924 the Connecticut Supreme Court to look to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in determining the scope of CUTPA, this court holds that an unfair or deceptive act or practice committed in a "business context," may fall within the coverage of General Statutes § 42-110b (a) as being an "unfair or deceptive [act] or [practice] in the conduct of any trade or commerce" even if it is incidental to the defendant's business.

Section 42-110b(a) does not apply to intra-business affairs.

Leisure Resort Tech. v. Trading Cove, No. Cv-00-0091180 (Oct. 13, 2000) · filed 2000-10-13(a)

Because the interpretation of CUTPA is guided by interpretations of the Federal Trade Commission Act, see C.G.S. § 42-110b (b), and because of the persuasive authority from our Superior Courts decisions and from Massachusetts, this court finds that CUTPA does not apply to intra-business affairs.

Section 42-110b(a) applies to nonprofit entities.

King v. Stetson School, Inc., No. Cv-99-0592362-S (Jan. 4, 2001) · filed 2001-01-04(a)

Even if Stetson were a non-profit entity, CUTPA would apply.

A tenant states a claim under § 42-110b by alleging that a landlord knowingly allowed sewage problems to persist instead of making repairs needed to keep the property safe and habitable.

Caleb Village Heights Foundation v. Barclay, No. 063265 (Jan. 8, 2001) · filed 2001-01-08(a)

Allegations that a tenant sustained damages because the landlord allowed such a condition to persist, thereby enhancing its economic condition by failing to make the necessary expenditures that public policy demands; see id., 273-74; satisfies the cigarette rule and opens the landlord to liability for violations of CUTPA.

Section 42-110b(a) covers the entrepreneurial aspects of engineering, but excludes claims of professional malpractice by engineers.

Worldwide Preserv. v. the Ivth Shea, No. X05 Cv 98-0167154 S (Feb. 1, 2001) · filed 2001-02-01(a)

This court holds that only the entrepreneurial aspects of the engineering profession are subject to CUTPA. Claims of professional malpractice by engineers are exempt from CUTPA.

Section 42-110b does not provide a claim when the injury for which the plaintiff seeks relief arises within the employment relationship, even if the alleged unfair acts occurred in trade or commerce.

Tanner v. Darly Custom Tech, Inc., No. Cv00 034 01 77 S (Feb. 8, 2001) · filed 2001-02-08(a)

The court holds that even when unfair acts within trade or commerce are alleged, if the ultimate injury for which redress is sought occurs within the zone of the employment relationship, a claim under CUTPA will not lie.

Section 42-110b(a) does not cover conduct confined to an employment relationship because that relationship is not trade or commerce.

Baillargeon v. First Union National Bank, No. Cv98-0262723-S (May 3, 2001) · filed 2001-05-03(a)

Because all of the allegations made by the plaintiff involve her employment relationship with the defendant, rather than trade or commerce with the defendant, her CUTPA claim is a mere conclusion of law that is unsupported by the facts alleged.

Section 42-110b(a) does not cover an employer-employee relationship because that relationship falls outside trade or commerce.

Total Communications v. Depaolo, No. Cv 99-0592846 S (Feb. 9, 2001) · filed 2001-02-09(a)

As noted above where the relationship at issue is between an employer and an employee, it does not fall within the definition of trade or commerce and cannot sustain a cause of action pursuant to CUTPA. Total's motion for summary judgment as to count four of the counterclaim is granted.

Section 42-110b(a) applies to deceptive practices involving trade or commerce in Connecticut even when some alleged conduct occurred outside the state.

Connecticut Pipe Trades Health Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc. · filed 2001-03-21(a)

... under the circumstances here, application of CUTPA to defendants gives effect to CUTPA’s prohibition on deceptive practices in the conduct of trade or commerce in this state.

Section 42-110b(a) does not require a consumer relationship to bring a claim for unfair or deceptive trade practices.

Klein v. William Raveis Real Estate, No. Cv 00 0181224 (Apr. 10, 2001) · filed 2001-04-10(a)

CUTPA provides an independent cause of action for "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." General Statutes § 42-110b (a). The Supreme Court has written: "We previously have stated in no uncertain terms that CUTPA imposes no requirement of a consumer relationship." Larsen Chelsey Realty Co. v. Larsen , 232 Conn. 480 , 496 , 656 A.2d 1009 (1995). Consequently, the defendant's motion to strike the fourth count of the plaintiff's complaint is denied.

Section 42-110b(a)'s trade-or-commerce requirement does not cover an estate administrator's ordinary administration of the estate.

Jaworski v. Anderson, No. Cv 94-0537265 S (Aug. 7, 2001) · filed 2001-08-07(a)

The motion in limine is also granted, with a similar exception, in regard to Diana's role as administrator of the estate. Administrators are no more engaged in "trade or commerce" within CUTPA than are doctors or lawyers.

Section 42-110b(a) requires plaintiffs to allege that they are consumers, competitors, or other business persons engaged in trade or commerce with the defendants; a rejected offer to buy their property does not establish such a relationship.

Ciesluk v. Camp Realty, No. Cv00 0070320s (Aug. 29, 2001) · filed 2001-08-29(a)

The plaintiffs, however, have not made any allegations that they are consumers, competitors or some "other business person" engaged in trade or commerce with the defendants. The plaintiffs' argument that a rejected offer to purchase real estate creates a business relationship that survives the rejection does not satisfy this requirement. The plaintiffs offer no authority to support this claim. Therefore, the CUTPA counts are legally insufficient and the defendants' motion to strike Counts 7, 8, 9, 22, 23 and 24 of the complaint is granted.

Section 42-110b(a) permits a CUTPA claim based on a law practice’s entrepreneurial and commercial conduct even when the underlying dispute arose from employment.

Lenge v. Beizer, No. Cv 00-0802145 (Aug. 30, 2001) · filed 2001-08-30(a)

In this case, the plaintiff's allegations relate to the entrepreneurial and commercial aspects of the practice of law and, therefore, the plaintiff may bring a CUTPA claim against the defendants despite the fact that the original conflict arose out of an employment relationship.

Section 42-110b(a) requires a CUTPA plaintiff to allege that the challenged acts were performed in a trade or business.

Thompson v. Kimmerle, No. Cv010084922 (Sep. 6, 2001) · filed 2001-09-06(a)

In order to allege a CUTPA violation properly, the plaintiff must allege, inter alia, that the acts complained of were performed in a "trade or business."

Section 42-110b(a) requires the alleged unfair or deceptive act to occur in trade or commerce; an owner's isolated refusal to pay for building repairs falls outside that requirement.

Hartford Restoration Service v. Buccino, No. Cv 99 70043 S (Oct. 10, 2001) · filed 2001-10-10(a)

General Statutes § 42-110b (a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts "in the conduct of any trade or commerce." ... The defendants' alleged misconduct is the isolated act of refusing to pay a contract debt arising from the repair of a building they own. This activity falls outside of the statutory definition of trade or commerce. The defendant's neither distributed nor sold nor leased nor advertised any services or property of any kind with respect to their contractual relationship with the plaintiff. Thus, the court holds that no CUTPA violation occurred.

A CUTPA claim sufficiently alleges the trade or business requirement when it alleges that the challenged acts were performed in a trade or business.

Saturno v. Dovenmuehle Funding, No. Cv99 0169649 S (Nov. 5, 2001) · filed 2001-11-05

Viewing the allegations in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that the defendant's acts were performed in a trade or business, as required to support a CUTPA claim.

Section 42-110b(a) does not cover internal law firm or employment dealings that involve no consumers or customers of the firm's services.

Ziegler v. Segal Laska, LLC, No. Cv 01-0506441s (Dec. 12, 2001) · filed 2001-12-12(a)

In the case at bar, there is nothing alleged that would bring these facts outside of a characterization of internal partnership or law firm dealings or an employee-employer relationship. The court cannot find that this is within the definition of trade or commerce, as the statute defines that phrase, since there are no consumers or customers of any CT Page 16996 service involved in these complained-of transactions.

Section 42-110b(a) does not cover conduct confined to intracorporate governance rather than trade or commerce.

Crovo v. Nugent, No. Cv 010085384-S (Jan. 14, 2002) · filed 2002-01-14(a)

Here, the allegations do not include conduct that can be fairly characterized as engaging in unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in a trade or commerce outside of intracorporate governance. For that reason, the motion to strike count two of the counterclaim is granted.

Section 42-110b requires the challenged conduct to occur in trade or commerce; harm to a plaintiff's business alone does not satisfy that requirement.

O'Halloran v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital, No. 990079084 (Jan. 18, 2002) · filed 2002-01-18

While a reasonable inference can be drawn from the allegations that the plaintiff's business has been harmed, there are no allegations from which an inference may be drawn that the defendants' acts occurred in the conduct of a trade or commerce which is a necessary element of a cause of action under CUTPA. See General Statutes § 42-110b .

Section 42-110b does not cover purely intracorporate conflicts.

Philbrick v. Chase, No. Cv98-0262264-S (Jun. 29, 2001) · filed 2001-06-29

Because the claim asserted in count five is a purely intracorporate conflict, that claim does not make out a CUTPA violation.

Section 42-110b(a) does not cover a purely intracorporate dispute between co-owners when the alleged conduct does not favor another corporation.

Jalbert v. Stanziale, No. Cv 01 0454543 S (Jan. 7, 2002) · filed 2002-01-07(a)

This CUTPA exception to intracorporate disputes is not applicable in the present case because Stanziale's alleged actions did not place another corporation's interests against the interests of PPFC. Even if, as Jalbert alleges in the complaint, Stanziale's actions usurped Jalbert's lifetime investment, interest and expectation of a fair return with respect to PPFC, Stanziale's actions do not qualify as anything more than an intracorporate dispute, which does not constitute a CUTPA violation.

Section 42-110b(a) covers the commercial aspects of legal practice but excludes an attorney’s representation of a client in a legal capacity.

McHenry v. Lubell, No. Cv 034 68 42 S (Aug. 2, 2001) · filed 2001-08-02(a)

Construing the factual allegations in the complaint in the manner most favorable to the plaintiff, the court concludes that her CUTPA claim is premised on the noncommercial aspect of the defendants' conduct; i.e., their conduct in representing her in the divorce action. Therefore, the motion to strike count six is granted.

An allegation that a lawyer fabricated a bill to conceal negligence can support a CUTPA claim when the complaint pleads facts supporting that allegation, even if it is made on information and belief.

Picard v. O'rourke, No. Cv01 038 12 04 S (Aug. 13, 2001) · filed 2001-08-13(a)

In the present action, the plaintiff's allegations do set forth predicate facts that support her CUTPA claim and, therefore, they are legally sufficient. The reasoning of Wiacek does not stand for the proposition that an allegation of fact is turned into a legal conclusion by the inclusion of the phrase "upon information and belief."

Section 42-110b(a) covers improper billing practices by a dentist as unfair or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce.

Clifford v. Becker, No. Cv00 0162656 (Sep. 10, 2001) · filed 2001-09-10(a)

By alleging that the defendant has engaged in improper billing practices, the plaintiff has clearly pleaded a sufficient cause of action for CUTPA under Connecticut law to withstand a motion to strike.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce.

O'Halloran v. Charlotte Hungerford Hosp., No. Cv 99 0079084s (May 8, 2002) · filed 2002-05-08(a)

General Statutes § 42-110b (a) provides that "no person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive trade or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. ... In reviewing the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the court concludes that the plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to establish that the defendants' conduct was performed in the course of trade or commerce.

Section 42-110b does not encompass an isolated private sale of real estate by a person not engaged in that business.

Gershberg v. Kean, No. Cv99 0174316 S (Jun. 10, 2002) · filed 2002-06-10

The court agrees with those Connecticut Superior Court decisions that have held that "an isolated private sale of real estate by one not in the business of doing so, is not encompassed within the trade or commerce CT Page 7355 language of the CUTPA statute § 42-110b ." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) ... Furthermore, the court concludes that the one time sale of the unit by the defendant does not constitute a violation of CUTPA.

Section 42-110b(a) applies to unfair or deceptive practices in trade or commerce; managing a condominium association is outside that scope.

Huntington Condominium v. Jackson, No. Cv 01 0384036 S (Oct. 10, 2002) · filed 2002-10-10(a)

Because CUTPA only applies to "unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce" (General Statutes § 42-110b (a)), the defendant's counterclaim based on CUTPA must fail.

Section 42-110b(a) requires a CUTPA claimant to have a consumer relationship with the party alleged to engage in unfair or deceptive practices.

Mendez v. Vri, USA, Inc., No. Cv02-0462113 (Nov. 12, 2002) · filed 2002-11-12(a)

A CUTPA claimant must have a consumer relationship with the party who is allegedly engaging in "unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices." General Statutes § 42-110b (a); Jackson v. R.G. Whipple, Inc. , 225 Conn. 705 , 727 , 627 A.2d 374 (1993).

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce.

Charts v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance · filed 2005-10-25(a)

Therefore, the Court finds that the stipulated fact, as well as the evidence presented at trial conforming to that stipulation, provided the jury with a sufficient evidentiary basis for finding that the acts complained of occurred in “the conduct of any trade or commerce.” § 42-110b(a).

Section 42-110b(a) bars unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce.

Pinette v. McLaughlin · filed 2006-08-01(a)

CUTPA provides in relevant part that “[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” General Statutes § 42-110b (a). ... the court also has indicated that a plaintiff must have at least some business relationship with the defendant in order to state a cause of action under CUTPA. ... In the present case, the court correctly concluded that no such business relationship existed between the plaintiff and the defendants for the purposes of the particular CUTPA violation alleged in the complaint.

Section 42-110b prohibits unfair or deceptive trade practices and protects consumers, competitors, and other business persons.

Rosenthal v. Ford Motor Co., Inc. · filed 2006-11-21(a), (b)

Conn. Gen.Stat. § 42-110b(a) provides that, “[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” ... The case law and legislative history thus show that CUTPA claims need not be limited to consumer relationships. Nevertheless, this court finds that the plaintiffs are “not within the class of persons that CUTPA intended to protect.” ... Here, plaintiffs are neither consumers, nor competitors, nor business persons. Thus, like the reasoning of the court in Gersich, which found that plaintiffs, “by virtue of being in a motor vehicle accident with a customer of Enterprise, are not consumers or competitors of Enterprise or other business persons affected by Enterprise’s conduct,” id., the plaintiffs’ CUTPA claims in this case must also fail.

Section 42-110b(a) applies only to acts in the conduct of trade or commerce.

Stearns & Wheeler, LLC v. Kowalsky Bros., Inc. · filed 2008-10-07(a)

CUTPA applies only to acts “in the conduct of any trade or commerce." General Statutes § 42-110b (a). ... Particularly relevant is our holding in United Components, Inc. v. Wdowiak, 239 Conn. 259, 264-65, 684 A.2d 693 (1996), in which we concluded that an employee could not bring a CUTPA action against his employer because the employer-employee relationship fell outside of the definition of trade and commerce for the purposes of CUTPA.

Section 42-110b(a) excludes activities incidental to an entity’s primary trade or commerce from CUTPA liability.

Sovereign Bank v. Licata · filed 2009-08-18(a)

Moreover, “a CUTPA violation may not be alleged for activities that are incidental to an entity’s primary trade or commerce.” ... The defendant’s allegations solely related to an ancillary transaction that was incidental to the Seven Oaks’ primary real estate business and thus fell outside the CUTPA penumbra. We conclude, therefore, that Seven Oaks could not be made subject to CUTPA sanctions for its conduct as alleged by the defendant.

Section 42-110b(a) does not cover BPE's claims against the defendants under the circumstances alleged.

Boston Property Exchange Transfer Co. v. Iantosca · filed 2010-02-18(a)

With respect to the Connecticut statute (CUTPA), the attorney defendants assert that a claim of professional malpractice must be based upon “entrepreneurial aspects” of the law profession and that this case cannot be so classified. ... BPE responds that all of the defendants are engaged in trade or commerce cognizable under the state statutes because they “are engaged in the trade or practice of bringing lawsuits against [BPE].” BPE cites no case law in support of its contention which is wholly without merit. Accordingly, Counts VII and VIII against the attorney defendants will be dismissed and Count VIII against the non-attorney defendants will be dismissed.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce.

Chorches v. Ogden (In Re Bolin & Co.) · filed 2010-09-22(a)

The Trustee cannot succeed on the CUTPA claim, however, because he has failed to establish that Ogden was engaged in trade or commerce. “Trade or commerce,” as the term is used in CUT-PA, implies more than one act in a line of business and excludes conduct undertaken in the course of a secondary line of work. Rather, a person’s conduct is subject to the statute only when her acts are performed within her “primary trade or commerce”; “activities that are incidental to that primary trade or commerce” are not actionable under the statute.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce.

Angiolillo v. Buckmiller · filed 2007-07-24(a)

CUTPA provides in relevant part that “[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” General Statutes § 42-110b (a). ... “Although our Supreme Court repeatedly has stated that CUTPA does not impose the requirement of a consumer relationship . . . the court also has indicated that a plaintiff must have at least some business relationship with the defendant in order to state a cause of action under CUTPA.” ... The plaintiffs failed to allege a cognizable claim under CUTPA. ... The court correctly concluded that no business relationship existed between the plaintiffs and the Buckmiller defendants to support the particular CUTPA violation alleged in the complaint.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce.

Biro v. Matz · filed 2011-11-29(a)

Finally, we consider the buyers’ contention that the trial court erred in finding no material issue of fact regarding whether the sellers committed a violation of CUTPA when the sellers conveyed title without first obtaining a certificate of occupancy. We agree with the trial court that, because the sellers did not primarily engage in the business of selling real estate, the CUTPA provisions do not apply to this transaction. Section 42-110b (a) provides in relevant part that “[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.”

Section 42-110b(a) does not treat a property owner’s failure to refer prospective buyers to its listing broker as conduct in trade or commerce.

NRT New England, LLC v. Longo · filed 2021-09-21(a)

Although the terms of the listing agreement may have obligated them to refer any such inquiries to the plain- tiff, their failure to do so would not constitute their participation in trade or commerce for the purposes of CUTPA.

Section 42-110b(a) covers loaner vehicles a dealership provides as part of its vehicle servicing business.

Tyus v. Bertera Subaru of Hartford, Inc. · filed 2021-10-27(a)

Thus, as a matter of law, Bertera’s loaning of vehicles is a part of, and not merely incidental to, its primary trade or practice of servicing cars.

Section 42-110b (a) requires an unfair or deceptive act to occur in the conduct of trade or commerce; the defendants’ dissemination of lies did not meet that requirement.

Lafferty v. Jones · filed 2024-12-10(a)

We conclude that, as a matter of law, the acts in which the defendants engaged were not ‘‘in the conduct of any trade or commerce’’ as required pursuant to CUTPA. See General Statutes § 42-110b (a).

Section 42-110b(a) does not apply to allegedly deceptive conduct in a securities transaction governed by federal securities antifraud law.

Tarpon Bay Partners LLC v. Zerez Holdings Corporation · filed 2023-08-11(a)

Because section 17(a) of the Securities Act would apply to allegedly deceptive behavior in a section 3(a)(10) transaction, CUTPA does not apply to Counterclaim Defendants’ alleged actions.

Section 42-110b(a) does not cover claims arising solely from an employer-employee relationship, including claims for unpaid wages and reimbursements.

Suleymanov v. Winston Premier Logistics, LLC · filed 2025-03-03(a)

“In Connecticut . . . claims arising from the employer-employee relationship fall outside the ambit of the phrase trade or commerce and, thus, cannot [on their own] constitute a cognizable CUTPA violation.” Matysiak v. Spectrum Servs. Co., No. 10-CV-01841 (CSH), 2014 WL 545412, at *4 (D. Conn. Feb. 10, 2014). Suleymanov, therefore, cannot establish at least one of the required elements of any CUTPA claim. Accordingly, the Court denies Suleymanov’s motion for default judgment as to his CUTPA claim.